Prayer Rugs

Prayer RugsAuthor(s): Frances MorrisSource: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 12 (Dec., 1921), pp. 252-255Published by: The Metropolitan Museum of ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3254694 .

Accessed: 24/05/2014 21:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheMetropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.117 on Sat, 24 May 2014 21:34:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mma

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3254694?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

tion, we may obtain an idea of its fine technical quality from such contemporary original examples as those exhibited in Cases B and M in our First Room.

The "gaming-board" (fig. i) brings us back to the royal splendor of Knossos. An ivory board over 4 ft. by 2 ft., covered with gold-foil and inlaid with rock crystal, silver, and blue paste can only have been the possession of a very wealthy grandee. And the richness of the material is matched by the beauty of the design and the deli- cacy of the workman- ship.1 Enclosed in a border of daisies is a rich and varied com- position with four large medallions and four nautilus reliefs as the chief motive at one end, and ten smaller medallions as the dom- inant feature of the other. Ribbed and plain strips of crystal, ivory, and blue paste make up the rest of the design. The original was found in a very broken condition, and the reconstruction shown in our reproduc- tion is only tentative, though resting mostly on trustworthy evi- dence. The gold-foil with which the ivory was originally covered has largely disap- peared. A number of fragments clearly belonging to the board could not be ac- commodated as parts of the design and suggest that there were originally decor- ated sides. In fact, it has been surmised, on the analogy of Egyptian draught- boards2 and the Mycenaean example from Enkomi in the British Museum,3 that

the Knossian board once served as the top of a box which contained the pieces of the game. As a matter of fact, however, no "pieces" were actually found with the board and the design itself is very different from those on the Egyptian and Myce- naean draught-boards. The latter are much smaller and are regularly divided into a series of squares resembling those of our own checker-boards. In the Knossian board there is no such simple subdivision of squares, and it is not clear how one

would move one's men from one side to the other. Could the board have been merely the ornamental top of a rich and gor- geous chest? Until we have further analogies we cannot tell. But we must admit that if the board was a game, it was a game with un- known rules.

G. M. A. R.

ii i

iilliiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiia r m!iiiii

FIG. 2. THREE-HANDLED JAR FROM MYCENAE

1For a detailed description of the board, cf. Sir Arthur Evans, British School Annual, VII, pp. 77 ff.

2Cf. e.g. the example in our museum, No. ol.4.1, in the Egyptian Daily Life Room.

3Cf. Murray, Excavations in Cyprus, p. 12, fig. 19.

PRAYER RUGS

AN excellent oppor- tunity for the study of prayer rugs is af- forded in the loan exhibition of oriental carpets from the collection of James F. Ballard of St. Louis

that was opened to the public on October 8 in Gallery D 6 and closes on December 31. Among the sixty-nine specimens shown in the exhibition, there are thirty prayer rugs from six different centers: twelve Ghiordes, eight Koulah, three Ladik, and one each from Persia, Bergamo, and Oushak, an interesting group that recalls the Whitechapel Loan Collection shown in London in 1909, when the weaves of Ghiordes attracted the international attention of rug enthusiasts.

Although no mention is made of the use of the prayer rug in the ceremonial rites of the Moslem religion, in those parts of the East where the ritual is most rigorously

252




observed every household has its special place reserved for the sajjadeh; and it is not unusual to find pocket prayer rugs made of fine cotton cloth on which the prayer niche is outlined in fine embroidery. Its use, however, is not so rigidly observed among the less orthodox Moslems in the West, and in Egypt, the Arab is content to stand unshod on the sands of the desert, or to spread out his sleeping rug or any other ordinary mat when he devoutly responds to the call of prayer. In the great mosque of Damascus, the floor is carpeted with oriental weaves, but in many places only coarsely woven strips of matting are laid where the worshipers stand ranged side by side in long rows or prostrate themselves in ritualistic attitudes. The elaborate prayer rugs found in the Museum collection were without doubt designed only for persons of high rank-Orientals such as G6r6me portrays in the "Mosque of Amrou"l--richly garbed Moslems who, like the one there shown, avail themselves of these costly weaves as a protection to their patrician feet.

The prayer rug is readily identified by its field, which is often, especially in Asia Minor weaves, in plain colors with ornamental spandrels at one end that give it the shape of the mihrab' or prayer niche-- a recess placed in the wall of every mosque on the side of the building that faces in the direction of Mecca, toward which all worshipers turn to pray. It is to the mihrabs found in the mausoleums of eastern potentates-the mosques of Ardebil, Tabriz, Marand, and Shiraz-that one must look for the inspiration that led the master weavers of the sixteenth century to per- petuate in their own medium this and other decorative features that adorn the faience walls of these great monuments.

This architectural device, which doubt- less became the accepted type of ornament for prayer rugs in the early days of fine rug weaving, is varied in form according to the locality of its origin. Thus, in Persia, it assumes the dome-shaped outline reminiscent of eastern construction; and

in Asia Minor, while it at first retains the Persian form, it later takes on an angular cone-shaped outline like the polygonal towers found in Armenian architecture.

This may be illustrated by comparing these Asia Minor rugs with the two sixteenth-century prayer rugs in the Museum collection3 which represent the pure Per- sian type with the gracefully arched mihrab. Turning to the Asia Minor group, it will be found that this outline appears in Nos. 41 and 44. In No. 134 of the same group the sides of the arch break into an angle and finish in a point, while No. io5 has the typical cone-shaped mihrab of Asia Minor.

Still another marked distinction between the prayer rugs of Persia and those of Asia Minor is the distribution of the field ornament. In Persian weaves this is invariably, as in Indian weaves, a mass of floral arabesques or small blossoms com- bined with branches of the plum or almond; the pendent lamp is vase-shaped and the supporting columns are lacking. In Asia Minor prayer rugs, the rich-hued field, as above stated, is more often plain, the weaves of Ghiordes as a rule having dis- tinctly modeled pilasters, sometimes rising from Turkish ewers, while in the Koulah weaves, the columns are replaced by stylis- tic trees or pendent jewels. In most Asia Minor rugs of this class, the floral form or the ewer device takes the place of the mosque lamp.

Of the twelve rugs exhibited in the Ghiordes group, the most important is that described under No. 13; not only is the white field unusual, but the introduction of the mosque lamp and attendant candlesticks designed in the style of the Syro-Egyptian glass and bronzes of the fourteenth century is a feature of ex- ceptional interest. In this piece the lay- out of the pattern is strongly reminiscent of Persia; not only in the niche, which has the incurved sides that follow the dome- shaped outline until they reach the arc,

1Wolfe Collection, Gallery 18. 2Sarre, Denkmdiler persischer Baukunst, cf.

Plate 17.

3Altman Collection, Gallery 5; Fletcher be- quest, Gallery E 14.

4 Illustrated in the November BULLETIN, 192 1. 5Cf. Sarre, Mosque of Konia, P1. 95, niche

with inscription in the field.

253




where they break into a conical form with stepped sides, but as well in the cartouches that frame the inscriptions. These inscriptions are woven in neskhi charac- ters-a more cursive script than the earlier Kufic-the central panel at the top con- taining the opening line of the first chapter of the Koran, "Bism 'illah-el-Rahman-el- Rahim" (In the name of God, the Clement and Pitiful). The arrangement of these cartouches is the same as in the Persian prayer rugs, which in turn repeat in loom- work the beautiful motifs wrought in Per- sian faience on the ruined walls of the Persian mosques. Another interesting feature in this rug is the introduction in its borders and spandrels of the Chinese cloud motifs-a survival of the imprint left upon Near Eastern art by the Mongol- ian invasion of the thirteenth century--a motif with which the designer has com- bined the flora of Asia Minor and the eight-pointed star familiar in Mussulman art.

Of equal importance is the interesting piece shown under No. 19, where the weaver has embodied many quotations from the Koran-some of which appear in small disk-like ornaments resembling Chin- ese seals, the rectangular Kufic lettering having all the character of Chinese script.

Another unusual Ghiordes piece, a dated document of the year 1614, is shown under No. II. In this, the field, covered with an inscription, is framed in a cone- shaped mihrab with closely stepped sides and an upper panel with a design of angular bands resembling in a way those found in the Indian rug catalogued under No. 63. This piece has an early type of border but it lacks the charm of that found in No. 41, where the medallions still show a marked adherence to the Persian model, although in the adaptation of the herati device, the western weaver has given to the attendant lanceolate leaves the same awkward outline found in those of the dragon carpet (No. 34).

In studying the borders of the Ghiordes group, there is the same marked distinction between the periods as in the field ornament, the early ones showing an at- tempt on the part of the weaver to repeat

the grace of the Persian models, the later ones indicating the adoption of a local type of ornament that is learned by rote and turned out by industrial workers- nothing that suggests the inspired genius of a master craftsman. This tendency is evidenced in the tiresome monotony found in the borders of late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Ghiordes weaves, where the design is confined to the repetition of a single quadrangular unit, often three conventionalized pomegranates placed on angular stems, or a similarly formal arrangement of the Rhodian lily and hyacinth -the former motif being perhaps more characteristic of the Ladik weaves, a recurrent motif in weaves of this center.

In the field decoration of this group there is a marked simplicity in the earlier weaves. This is true in No. 3, in which the deep red field is devoid of ornament save for an un- obtrusive floral ornament in the niche, and in No. 9, where the deep blue center has a simple floral device in the niche with supporting columns at the sides, while No. 44 differs in the introduction of the ewer motif.

The salient features of the Koulah weaves may be said to be the borders, which as a rule are made up of seven or eight narrow bands of alternate colors. A typical example is shown under No. 40, which has the rather less exaggerated cone-shaped niche peculiar to this type, the elaborate borders, and the central tree ornament in the field. In No. 5I is shown the unusual tomb and coffin motif sometimes found in these rugs.

The Ladik weaves are represented by five interesting examples. Of these Nos. 47 and 52 are perhaps the most typical examples. In rugs from this center, the niche is characterized by an almost square end, sometimes with three or more small points. In these rugs the Rhodian lily designed to form a quadrangular unit is the outstanding feature in the border, where it often alternates with a rosette motif. What is perhaps the most distinc- tive mark of identification in these rugs is the lower panel with "arrowhead" points from which emerge five parallel stems of pomegranates.

254




The double prayer rug from southern Persia, No. 64, has the characteristic mihrabs. The upper field is richly orna- mented with curling leaves and arabesques, while the lower field is diapered with a small trefoil motif, the same device which appears as the finial of each of the niches. The trefoil, which is probably derived from the lily, is a recurrent theme in Arab art. It not only appears in sculptured stone ornament, but is ever present in the borders of Asia Minor rugs.

In no exhibition of recent years has the prayer rug appeared to such admirable advantage as in the collection here shown. The owner has been fortunate in ac- quiring the finest examples available, and the decorative effect produced by the careful grouping of these brilliant weaves has tended rather to accentuate than to diminish the individual charm of each.

F. M.

THE ART CONGRESS IN PARIS

THE Congrbs d'Histoire de l'Art fran- ?ais was held at the Sorbonne in Paris from September 26 to October 5. It was the first great gathering of this kind since the international convention held in Rome in 1914. With the exception of Germany, the invitation this year was international and there were delegates present from twenty-five countries as far separated as China, Japan, Argentine, and the United States. It was regrettable that so few delegates were present to represent our museums and institutions of art. The meeting was called by the Societ~ d'His- toire de l'Art frangais and at the opening session each country brought its tribute to France-genuine homage, for in the long history of civilization who has contributed so much to the world's art? When the United States was called upon, the repre- sentative was not a museum scholar or a university professor, as had been the case with the other countries. Instead we were represented by a woman, Cecilia Beaux, an artist of international distinction. This seemed very fitting, as it em- phasized the place that women hold in our professional life.

Miss Beaux's theme was the gratitude of the artist to France "who opens the door to the future but never forgets the past." She acknowledged the debt which American painters owe to many European countries, but said that it is to France that they must go for counsel and leadership, for her great criticism and her sense of perfec- tion. If Miss Beaux had not spoken, no mention would have been made at this meeting of what the modern painter owes to France, and this is certainly a part of the history of art which is not all a matter of past record-new chapters are being writ- ten today.

The session closed with the address of the President, Andre Michel; one would like to quote it at length, but the closing paragraph is sufficient to show the fine per- ception of values and the high courage which characterized the whole speech. ". . . Ce qui fait le prix, la valeur, le charme de la vie, avec la bonte, c'est la beaute. I1 est plus facile et c'est plus t6t fait de demolir et de brfler une cath&- dral que de la construire, mais la seul chose qui compte au livre de l'esprit, c'est qu'elle ait it4 construite, et de savoir comment. . . La langage de l'art est le seul d'oui qu'il vienne, que tous les hommes comprennent. . . Soyez re- mercies, vous tous qui concourez a le rendre toujours plus clair et plus persuasif."

With the exception of the general assem- blies with which the Congress opened and closed, the deliberations were conducted in sectional meetings, devoted to the fol- lowing subjects: I. Teaching and Museo- graphy; 2. Western Art; 3. Byzantine, Eastern, and Far Eastern Art; 4. History of Music. This brought together small groups of students in each subject and gave coherence to the discussions. Unfor- tunately, since all the meetings were held simultaneously, one was in danger of miss- ing some papers of the greatest interest, such for instance as those by MM. M le, Koechlin, Diehl, Vitry, and Venturi. Nevertheless, in spite of its formidable title Section I was in many ways the most sig- nificant for those who were interested in practical questions of administration, pub- lication, and teaching in the Museum.

255



Prayer Rugs

Documents

Transcript of Prayer Rugs